Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Liszt was a very fine composer, and a musical genius. But Chopin occupies a different universe.

Yes, but not a better universe.

This. I love them both dearly, but I think that with these two, saying one is greater than the other is purely subjective. For me personally, where they more or less cancel each other out in piano works, Liszt has so much great stuff away from the piano that Chopin obviously just does not have.

Perhaps you could could back up for a moment and ask what exactly beet31425 meant by a 'different universe'?

I suspect I know what he means, and even more, where he is going with this, but far be it for me to give that away.

Oh, I think they know as well as you. Well, shame on me for crashing a Liszt appreciation thread.

Seriously, I used to hate Liszt. Let's say I used to give him a 2 and Chopin a 10. Then, a few years ago (partly from reading the posts of some folks here), I gave him a more careful listen, and came to completely reevaluate him. I saw that what I used to hear as bombast was just a part of his vocabulary, which indeed was rich, nuanced and expressive. Sonetto 104 and even the Dante Sonata are on my might-play-someday list.

So I think Liszt is quite good-- I'd give him something like a 7 or 8 now. But Chopin is still a 10. Almost every nuance, every little corner of his compositions, sparkles like a gem. It can sometimes be hard to hear it since some of his pieces are too popular for their own good, and ours. But, Liszt vs. Chopin is like the difference between a powerful, accomplished wise mortal... and a god.

All my opinion, of course, and I already know it's not shared by others.

But, Liszt vs. Chopin is like the difference between a powerful, accomplished wise mortal... and a god.

-Jason

See for me, i'm the same, but the other way around . And it's not just in the music, it's the persona too. Where I get put off by the person that was Chopin, Liszt was truly a godlike human being - and when I listen to his music, I hear not only the sublime music, but know it came from a person who was worthy of it. I just find Liszt a lot easier to love, and frankly his music touches me more. But to each his own! I love Chopin, i've been listening to him a lot lately. I've really re-evaluated his piano concerti, after not liking them that much initially I now am officially in love with them.

Is it fair game to discuss his contribution to technique in this thread then? I'll start with this since I recently made the clips for another thread. Mazeppa has been brought up a few times for the seemingly odd use of 2-4, 2-4, 2-4, etc fingering on the thirds, generally explained as helping to achieve the sensation of a galloping horse. But digging around, I found a few more examples. The effect, to be sure, seems to result in a punchier sound. If I recall correctly, Horowitz also uses this fingering in the ascending thirds preceding the finale in his transcription of Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" achieving an extraordinary sound.

Is it fair game to discuss his contribution to technique in this thread then? I'll start with this since I recently made the clips for another thread. Mazeppa has been brought up a few times for the seemingly odd use of 2-4, 2-4, 2-4, etc fingering on the thirds, generally explained as helping to achieve the sensation of a galloping horse. But digging around, I found a few more examples. The effect, to be sure, seems to result in a punchier sound. If I recall correctly, Horowitz also uses this fingering in the ascending thirds preceding the finale in his transcription of Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" achieving an extraordinary sound.

from Mazeppafrom the 6th Paganini etude-

from Hungarian Rhapsody #1

[/quote]

I don't have anything to add to this discussion, but that's very interesting! How he uses specific fingerings to achieve an effect in his music. Fiddling around on the piano right now, it does achieve that punchier sound. I don't know how he contributed to technique, other than using new figurations and writing virtuoso stuff that really had not been done before on the piano.

Speaking of Mazeppa...I'm currently listening to the symphonic poem version - it came with BBC Music Magazine. This work is often criticised, unjustly IMO. People say stuff like unimaginative orchestration and banal and all that stuff...I hate all those comments. This is terrific music - maybe not for everyone, but this is sexually charged music if there ever was any. And I don't even agree with the unimaginative orchestration - I think that is more to do with most performances, tbh. I have heard many recordings on youtube, but none of them bring out the galloping and neighing of the horse in the variant of the first subject, and numerous other things - very imaginative if you ask me, listening to this (surprisingly exemplary BBC Magazine recording). So this is why I will not post a video on here.

I don't have anything to add to this discussion, but that's very interesting! How he uses specific fingerings to achieve an effect in his music. Fiddling around on the piano right now, it does achieve that punchier sound. I don't know how he contributed to technique, other than using new figurations and writing virtuoso stuff that really had not been done before on the piano.

One of the things for which Liszt is most criticized is IMO one of his more important contributions to the literature. "Too many notes" is something you will often hear, but they defined so many ornamental effects that had not yet been heard and have been used subsequently by other composers. He outlined what was possible to be done on the piano.

I don't have anything to add to this discussion, but that's very interesting! How he uses specific fingerings to achieve an effect in his music. Fiddling around on the piano right now, it does achieve that punchier sound. I don't know how he contributed to technique, other than using new figurations and writing virtuoso stuff that really had not been done before on the piano.

One of the things for which Liszt is most criticized is IMO one of his more important contributions to the literature. "Too many notes" is something you will often hear, but they defined so many ornamental effects that had not yet been heard and have been used subsequently by other composers. He outlined what was possible to be done on the piano.

Yes, I agree. Where Chopin often gets continuous credit for being the first to truly making the piano sing, Liszt should get the same sort of credit for his innovations in keyboard technique, as you said showing what was possible to be done on the piano as he was IMO at least as important for it - but instead he just gets criticised for it.

And also it's such a narrow minded and stereotypical view. He wrote so much great music, some of it using a lot of virtuosity and some not. If both the stereotypes were gone, and the people understood his innovations in technique rather than criticising him for lots of notes he would be held in a much higher regard.

And besides...As much bad Liszt as there should be, I find very little without interest. Even his more 'empty,' less inspired virtuoso pieces have interest, can be fun, and have inspired sections. To me they are often much more preferable to the less inspired work of the other great keyboard composers.

Where Chopin often gets continuous credit for being the first to truly making the piano sing, Liszt should get the same sort of credit for his innovations in keyboard technique, as you said showing what was possible to be done on the piano as he was IMO at least as important for it - but instead he just gets criticised for it.

No knock to Chopin, but Beethoven was the first to make the piano sing. Also Chopin always sounds like Chopin, he never pushed the sonic boundaries. He found a niche and stayed there.

I'm going to make a post of just the works I know and see how many are worth bothering with...(I have a LOT to explore, many piano works, most of his choral stuff, lieder, chamber and more, so this won't be a complete list).

Could the "Damion" who wrote this article be an alter ago for our own Damon? A sort of Jekyll/Hyde situation?

For a long time, before coming here, I would have agreed with this article. Some part of me can't help but still be sympathetic to its main point. It's been eye-opening to see how much respect and love Liszt gets around here.

stores
6000 Post Club Member
Registered: 12/28/09
Posts: 6651
Loc: Here, as opposed to there

Originally Posted By: Damon

Originally Posted By: Orange Soda King

Actually, Haydn and Mozart did it before Beethoven! And Schubert did it around the same time as Beethoven, which was before Chopin.

Haydn and Mozart didn't know what a piano was.

They absolutely did. Especially, Papa. Their pianos certainly weren't anything close to the one we know today, but rapid advancements were taking place during both their lifetimes and Haydn would have the opportunity to witness a GREAT deal of advancement.

_________________________

"And if we look at the works of J.S. Bach â€” a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity... -Debussy

Where Chopin often gets continuous credit for being the first to truly making the piano sing, Liszt should get the same sort of credit for his innovations in keyboard technique, as you said showing what was possible to be done on the piano as he was IMO at least as important for it - but instead he just gets criticised for it.

No knock to Chopin, but Beethoven was the first to make the piano sing. Also Chopin always sounds like Chopin, he never pushed the sonic boundaries. He found a niche and stayed there.

I can't believe I'm disagreeing with a Damon post, but are you serious? Can you explain to me how the Preludes sound like the Mazurkas or how they sound like the Waltzes? The amazing thing to me is the innovation and variety of Chopin's work, and all with seemingly little outside influence - just a dash of Hummel and a pinch of Bellini. He found a way to use every chord under the sun, properly.

I'll be generous toward the 'opposition' and put the CD length at 75 minutes. I'll also be very generous toward the opposition in pieces that I pick, leaving many that I think are more than worthy and 'satisfying' out. I also won't include works that I have heard are more than worthy but I haven't heard, just to make it more ridiculous, and of course the hundreds of works I just don't know (and works that I do know but not well enough). I also won't include alternate versions of works I have already mentioned - even the works in different genres to the aforementioned. I also won't include any of his genius transcriptions...except for his of his own work.

So here it is, the works that reveal a 'truly satisfying creative artist.'

20 absolutely full length CD's, not 5. And I think if I didn't do all those things I said I would at the start...It would be at LEAST double that, probably a lot more. If I included transcriptions, triple, earlier/different versions would also add more. I'm looking forward to exploring the rest of his output.

Where Chopin often gets continuous credit for being the first to truly making the piano sing, Liszt should get the same sort of credit for his innovations in keyboard technique, as you said showing what was possible to be done on the piano as he was IMO at least as important for it - but instead he just gets criticised for it.

No knock to Chopin, but Beethoven was the first to make the piano sing. Also Chopin always sounds like Chopin, he never pushed the sonic boundaries. He found a niche and stayed there.

I can't believe I'm disagreeing with a Damon post, but are you serious?

Okay, I was exaggerating a little. There has to be some balance to the Chopin gushing around here.

Your comments here brought to mind the comments of Charles Rosen, from an article several decades back. He suggested that, in the compositional arena, Liszt really should be thought of as a composer who created new sonic landscapes; who loved the sense of new sonic experiences utilizing the extreme registers of the keyboard, at all sorts of unprecedented tempi and complexities. Liszt's output has been more commonly associated with the vulgar 19th century melodrama, faux religiosity, and/or sickly-sweet sentimentality that quite frankly repulsed most 20th century listeners; but perhaps there is now (in the 21st) an opportunity to review his pianistic output more in the "revolutionary" sound sense than projecting the hyper-emotional implications. JUst a thought -- from one who's never liked Liszt very much for these reasons, certainly not enough to begin to deal with the daunting technical demands.

Currently listening to the mighty Christus Oratorio. The work is marvellous. The more I listen to it, the more I love it. Leslie Howard thinks it is Liszt's greatest work and 'far and away the greatest Romantic Oratorio.' Not easy listening but as I have realised, it rewards repeated listening. And IMO Part III has to be one of the greatest hours or so of music ever written.

For those who like choral music, listen to this colossal Stabat Mater Dolorosa movement. It is much better in context, but the work goes for 3.5 hours and this is near the end.

Here's the link to the playlist on youtube for those who are interested in the whole thing.

I think this is some interesting Liszt playing - caution and accuracy thrown to the winds, but a lot of high-spirited and colorful fun. And, by the way, I think this music demonstrates one reason some people don't handle Liszt very well - he's just not serious enough all the time and he knows how to have a good, raucous party on the keyboard.

It is somehow appropriate that Enrico Pace, one of the better Liszt players around, doesn't believe in recordings (an attitude I can easily imagine Liszt approving of), so mostly what we get of his solo work are some poor quality bootlegs. Here's one...

I think this is some interesting Liszt playing - caution and accuracy thrown to the winds, but a lot of high-spirited and colorful fun. And, by the way, I think this music demonstrates one reason some people don't handle Liszt very well - he's just not serious enough all the time and he knows how to have a good, raucous party on the keyboard.

Would be better if he had more tricks to pull out of his hat beyond the first 30 seconds. Oh wow, he can go fast and loud and then immediately super slow and quiet.. impressive once or twice, not so much for 8 minutes. I often find that these "novelty" pianists are the ones with the least to say.

Would be better if he had more tricks to pull out of his hat beyond the first 30 seconds. Oh wow, he can go fast and loud and then immediately super slow and quiet.. impressive once or twice, not so much for 8 minutes. I often find that these "novelty" pianists are the ones with the least to say.

I think there's rather more going in that performance than you seem to have heard, but whatever...

I agree with you here, wr -- THAT is how a Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody should be presented! For me, it was reminiscent of how a jazz pianist with "chops" would approach this -- semi-improvisatory, overtly showy, slick -- IMO, exactly as Liszt had conceived it. I wouldn't approach the "Funerailles", or the "Benediction to God in Solitude" in this manner, but this performance totally works for me.